Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
LittleWhiteMouse

Continuous AA DPS Explained

216 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

303
Members
358 posts
3,738 battles

Excellent info Mouse, thank you.

Doesn't really play into the "everything is fine" narrative from WG. I am also a bit skeptical that the "bug" isn't a "feature" as the initial delay in AA DPS enables WGs goal of allowing a strike to get through but making it costly in the end. Making the ramp up time slow certainly helps that. 

It also further solidifies my opinion that CV was not ready for ranked season 12 and reduces my confidence in this developer. 

Edited by exray0
  • Cool 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,049
Members
23,678 posts
5,971 battles

Excellent post!

I was under the impression that sector reinforcement just increased DPS by a percentage, but it looks much more worthwhile now.

Fixing that bug ought to be top priority!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
330
[_RNG_]
Members
722 posts
5,859 battles

Thank you @LittleWhiteMouse. I'm going to have to reread this a couple times to totally understand it. It's awesome that you put so much effort into helping the rest of us understand what is going on. Thanks for making the mechanics transparent. And also nudging Wargaming to make sure it's all working properly.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,068
[O_O]
[O_O]
Members
3,804 posts
16,885 battles

I learn something with each of your articles. Thanks LWM!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,070
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
11,687 posts
17,175 battles
27 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

For those frustrated with the current AA mechanics -- you're right to feel that way.

Wow, just truly excellent work; thank you for your efforts and this informative post. HUGE thumbs up Tiger!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
7,307 posts
3,248 battles

Hopefully, this is allowed, but there is an interesting post on WoWS subreddit about this very topic. The Problem with Continuous AA. The quick and dirty is that the problem with AA is that it isn't effective until you reach a critical mass of damage vs. the health of the plane. I recommend the read.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
676
[CVA16]
Members
3,739 posts
12,104 battles

Just wondering, does the facing of the AA mount have any effect? Does an attack on the port side of a Iowa face 10 (5x2) 5" or 20? Might make a huge difference if one side of you ship has been hammered. Or is all surviving guns count?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30,969
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
10,694 posts
8,774 battles
4 minutes ago, 10T0nHammer said:

Hopefully, this is allowed, but there is an interesting post on WoWS subreddit about this very topic. The Problem with Continuous AA. The quick and dirty is that the problem with AA is that it isn't effective until you reach a critical mass of damage vs. the health of the plane. I recommend the read.

This is the other side of the puzzle.  In theory high alpha strikes should be the missing link which smooths out the influence of RNGeebus.  The idea would be that your large caliber guns get two to four good licks in and you'd have a pretty good chance that at least one plane would be at significantly lower health by the time your medium caliber, rapid fire guns begin chewing them up during the attack run.  I've said it once and I'll say it again, you don't need to cause very many casualties to aircraft carriers to begin depleting their reserves.  For some carriers, the loss of as little as two to three planes per squadron is unsustainable.

Buffing long range guns to be able to deal those big chunks of damage will help accomplish this.  RNGeebus might still give you the middle finger on occasion, but at least the proper tools will be in place.

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30,969
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
10,694 posts
8,774 battles
4 minutes ago, Sabot_100 said:

Just wondering, does the facing of the AA mount have any effect? Does an attack on the port side of a Iowa face 10 (5x2) 5" or 20? Might make a huge difference if one side of you ship has been hammered. Or is all surviving guns count?

Facing of the AA mounts doesn't matter.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
7,307 posts
3,248 battles
2 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

uffing long range guns to be able to deal those big chunks of damage will help accomplish this.

And bring my poor Atlanta back to AA deathwall it used to be. Those 127s don't do a whole lot to deter CVs.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33
[WHS]
[WHS]
Members
299 posts
9,705 battles

Interesting... the delayed damage is a bug... when I noticed it I assumed it was made like that so the CV had some time to turn around and run in case it happened upon the AA bubble of a ship that had the same range as it's air conceal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,060
[SYN]
Members
7,556 posts
12,807 battles

Very interesting, I have a much better understanding of the crap current AA mechanics.

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,313
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
4,927 posts
15,754 battles

Cool. Good to know that our initial models of how this worked were correct.

FWIW, the value displayed in port IS an accurate representation of the theoretical aura DPS if you squint really hard and remember to multiply by the listed accuracy factor. In reality, as you say, the discrete tick time on some of the larger mounts starts to make a huge difference in terms of how much real damage you can deal.

Finally, a small note on something I always find confusing: AA ticks don't seem to register their damage immediately. I think the game spawns a quasi-projectile for each tick that has to reach your plane before it actually takes the damage, and that fake (invisible) projectile actually has a rather slow velocity. This is why planes frequently take damage and get shot down even after they leave the actual AA aura range -- the invisible damage tick boogeyman was already in the air. It's also why the "Incoming AA" symbol stays on the screen long after AA has stopped shooting. While there's probably some interesting tricks you can do with the doppler effects of approaching vs. retreating against such an effect, the main consequence I've noticed is that it's really hard to tell which aura just wrecked your squadron on the way out.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53
[MESH]
Beta Testers
69 posts
6,721 battles

“HMS Thunderer, the upcoming tier 10 premium Royal Navy battleship.

I thought this was going to be an alternate ship in the tech tree?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30,969
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
10,694 posts
8,774 battles
Just now, dgr_874 said:

I thought this was going to be an alternate ship in the tech tree?

According to some savvy code-spelunkers on Reddit, Thunderer is apparently encoded as a premium.  This may change (she's not on the live servers yet as far as I know), but she holds to the patterns seen previously, she's likely to be made available for coal, steel or free experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53
[MESH]
Beta Testers
69 posts
6,721 battles
Just now, LittleWhiteMouse said:

According to some savvy code-spelunkers on Reddit, Thunderer is apparently encoded as a premium.  This may change (she's not on the live servers yet as far as I know), but she holds to the patterns seen previously, she's likely to be made available for coal, steel or free experience.

Thank you for the clarification!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
994
[RKLES]
[RKLES]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,760 posts
16,288 battles

You didn't mention AFT at all.

It says, " increases efficiency of medium- and long-range AA mounts"

It ALSO says "damage per second within explosion radius of shells fired from medium- and long-range AA defenses" +15%.

.....

So what does " efficiency " actually mean?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
869
[A-D]
Beta Testers, Alpha Tester
2,638 posts
1 hour ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

"But Mouse," you say, "your last example sounded hyperbolic.  Surely there's no way for aircraft to pass through an aura and take zero damage.  Shouldn't the AA guns open fire the moment an aircraft comes into range?"  Yes, yes they should.  They don't, but they should.

 

Despite this, cruisers with concealment close to or the same as their AA range can still damage squadrons before they can turn away/disengage - before the ship even renders.

If WG makes AA damage "instant" like that, air concealment should be nerfed a bit to allow aircraft a better chance to avoid them.

  • Cool 10
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22
[CO-OP]
Members
121 posts
3,940 battles
1 hour ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

 I mean, how am I supposed to properly evaluate the relative effectiveness of AA firepower if I don't understand the fundamentals? 

Since the change over that's what I've been wondering as well. Thanks very much for the good work on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30,969
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
10,694 posts
8,774 battles
2 minutes ago, dEsTurbed1 said:

You didn't mention AFT at all.

It says, " increases efficiency of medium- and long-range AA mounts"

It ALSO says "damage per second within explosion radius of shells fired from medium- and long-range AA defenses" +15%.

.....

So what does " efficiency " actually mean?

Advanced Fire Training affects flak explosions and flak explosions only (providing a 15% increase to damage).  Flak explosions are already near instant-death for any aircraft that stumble into them and they're all too easy to avoid for expert players.  This makes Advanced Fire Training one of the least effective AA skills for its point investment currently.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
994
[RKLES]
[RKLES]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,760 posts
16,288 battles
8 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Advanced Fire Training affects flak explosions and flak explosions only (providing a 15% increase to damage).  Flak explosions are already near instant-death for any aircraft that stumble into them and they're all too easy to avoid for expert players.  This makes Advanced Fire Training one of the least effective AA skills for its point investment currently.

Thank you my friend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,243
[ARS]
Beta Testers
3,313 posts
3,226 battles

@LittleWhiteMouse Please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that an attack by fast planes can completely avoid the continuous damage from slow firing guns on both the way in and the way out because the guns don't start their cooldown to fire until an aircraft enters the range band for those guns.  Once the planes have passed through the band on the way in, doing so fast enough to avoid being shot due to the bug, the cooldown resets until a plane enters their range band again, so when that happens on the plane's way out the timer again starts and, again, the planes can get all the way through without a single pulse of damage happening.  Correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×